Case: Crabtree v. Goetz

3:08-cv-00939 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee

Filed Date: Sept. 23, 2008

Closed Date: 2010

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 23, 2008 a group of disabled individuals who were receiving home-based care filed suit against the Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration and the Bureau of TennCare in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. They alleged that the defendants were violating that Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by moving to reduce or eliminate their home-based nursing services. They claimed that these reductions were being made wi…

On September 23, 2008 a group of disabled individuals who were receiving home-based care filed suit against the Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration and the Bureau of TennCare in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. They alleged that the defendants were violating that Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by moving to reduce or eliminate their home-based nursing services. They claimed that these reductions were being made without regard for their health needs and would deprive them of needed nursing services and force them into institutionalized care, even though they had been approved for home care and institutionalized care would be detrimental to their health and well-being. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief that would preserve their current home-based care until the new program for providing home-based care was made fully available to them.

The plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on September 23, 2008. On December 19, 2008 the court (Judge William J. Haynes Jr.) entered a preliminary injunction ordering the defendants to refrain from cutting the current home-based services provided to plaintiffs, conduct an individualized assessment of the needs of each plaintiff, and then determine whether nursing homes would provide the services the plaintiffs required. Subsequently additional plaintiffs intervened in order to receive similar relief and the parties engaged in litigation regarding cuts to the home-based care of individual plaintiffs. The case concluded on January 22, 2010 when the court (Judge Haynes) entered an agreed order of dismissal pursuant to a settlement agreement reached by the parties. The details of the settlement are not known.

Summary Authors

Michael Perry (3/10/2011)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4763872/parties/crabtree-v-goetz/


Judge(s)

Campbell, Todd J. (Tennessee)

Echols, Robert L. (Tennessee)

Griffin, Juliet E. (Tennessee)

Haynes, William Joseph Jr. (Tennessee)

Nixon, John Trice (Tennessee)

Trauger, Aleta Arthur (Tennessee)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Abelow, Michael G. (Tennessee)

Croce, Lenny L. (Tennessee)

Evans, Kathryn A. (Tennessee)

Gold, Stephen F. (Pennsylvania)

Judge(s)

Campbell, Todd J. (Tennessee)

Echols, Robert L. (Tennessee)

Griffin, Juliet E. (Tennessee)

Haynes, William Joseph Jr. (Tennessee)

Nixon, John Trice (Tennessee)

Trauger, Aleta Arthur (Tennessee)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Abelow, Michael G. (Tennessee)

Croce, Lenny L. (Tennessee)

Evans, Kathryn A. (Tennessee)

Gold, Stephen F. (Pennsylvania)

Perkins, Jane (North Carolina)

Rambsy, Phillis H. (Tennessee)

Somers, Sarah (North Carolina)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Cooper, Charles Justin (District of Columbia)

Kirk, Michael W. (District of Columbia)

Moss, Nicole J. (District of Columbia)

Reed, Carolyn E. (Tennessee)

Ross, Linda A. (Tennessee)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

Jan. 22, 2010 Docket
1

Complaint

Sept. 23, 2008 Complaint
78

Order (Entering Preliminary Injunction)

2008 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 103092

Dec. 19, 2008 Order/Opinion
77

Opinion (Granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction)

2008 WL 5330506, 2008 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 103097

Dec. 19, 2008 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4763872/crabtree-v-goetz/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
77

MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 12/19/08. (af)

Dec. 19, 2008 RECAP
78

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. It is ORDERED that (1) the Defendants shall refrain from imposing the cuts in Home Health and Private Duty Nurse upon the Plaintiffs until the community-based, patient centered system authorized by the State's Long-Term Care Community Choices Act is implemented and available to Plaintiffs; (2) the Defendants shall conduct individualized assessments of the Plaintiffs to determine the specific needs of each Plaintiff, including the amount of time required to meet those needs, and the extent to which family or other natural supports are available, and whether the needs could be satisified in the community at less cost than Defendants are presently paying; and (3) the Defendants shall determine whether nursing homes will in fact provide the services each Plaintiff requires. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 12/19/08. (af)

Dec. 19, 2008 RECAP

State / Territory: Tennessee

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 23, 2008

Closing Date: 2010

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A group of disabled individuals receiving community based care.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Legal Services/Legal Aid

Steve Gold

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration (Nashville, Davidson), State

Bureau of TennCare (Nashville, Davidson), State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

Benefit Source:

Medicaid